Skip to main content
7:00 am
then a discussion on the trial whitey bulger. and so researchers are re- classifying cancer. host:
7:01 am
you can reach out to us on social media this morning.
7:02 am
"the walle take from street journal." others have insight and background and this is from "the washington post."
7:03 am
the larger context this morning is about the cancellation of meetings between president obama and president clinton and russia over issues. we want to -- and president vladimir putin. you can alsol --
7:04 am
use social media. maryland is up first on our democrat line. caller: good morning. host: what do you think about the cancellation of this meeting? caller: i think it is kind of silly because when you have problems with somebody, shouldn't you talk to them? why you cancel a meeting if you've got problems with their neighbor, you go talk to your neighbor. that the white house says because progress was made, a summit was not good at this time. that is their argument. caller: i still think you have to talk to people. host: if that's the case, talk pointwhat the discussion be and how does edward snowden complicate this? caller: that really complicate
7:05 am
everything. host: there he is on the screen, edward it snowed in. --ginia, cancellation virginia is next on our independent line. caller: good morning, hello. i agree with the previous caller. by stopping talking to somebody, i think it is detrimental to relationships rather than encouraging relationships. snowden can beat likened to spy swaps. we know it goes on. regarding him should be performed in the same white as spy swaps are
7:06 am
performed. host: do you think a face-to- face meeting would have been productive? yes, i think absolutely. when you look at the enormity of the relationship between russia and the united states, why over such a relatively small thing where the damage has already been done, do you put at risk all of the other things that former relationship between two large countries? host: this is from twitter -- ryan is on the phone from washington, d.c., on a republican line. caller: hello, sir. i was reading an article on
7:07 am
foreign last night and itvlad the impaler talks about our relationship with russia and how vladimir putin is sticking it to obama in this administration and is really the superior strategist when it comes to foreign policy. he has his eye on the prize. we just cannot seem to get our things together. there is a lot of information in this article. pew research did polls of russian citizens and they found statistics like 75% of the people find a good economy more important than democratization. find a strong leader more important than free society. it is this mentality that i think vladimir putin and caps
7:08 am
delays. forarticle says it is going your goals before your morals and that is what russia is prepared to do and that's not what this administration is prepared to do. i think that is why our relationship will continue to deteriorate. right now, that is what russi anda winning the foreign policy wars. host: monica, calif., independent line. caller: thank you for having me. we are very much aware that snowden is in russia.
7:09 am
next up is a midland, texas, independent line. i wouldfirst of all, like to say that the media coverage of just this one issue is an excellent example why our media, television, news, and our newspapers are just losing a leadership, losing viewers. but coverage is so pathetic. it has almost turned into our new pravda. it is so pathetic and a disservice.
7:10 am
russia is trying to keep united states out of a war in syria that is based on lies, the same people that live the us into bombing iraq are the same people that are trying to lie us into this thing in syria. sellingpapers now are for pennies on the dollar. themy wants to deal with anymore. we have lost our reporters. we have lost it all, sir. host: what do you think about the cancellation of the meeting? but coverage is so pathetic -- host: what about the cancellation of the meeting? caller: the reason it has been cancelled is because our government does not have
7:11 am
anything to add to it. they just want to go to war. any -- we cannot negotiate. we just want to control other countries. the state department on wednesday it was passed the state department spokesperson who reiterated the administration canceling the meeting. [video clip] >> there was unanimous support for the decision within the national security council not to hold the summit. is point was made, and this one the secretary agrees with, is that -- we were not at the point in our progress on a number of issues where a summit at the presidential level was the most constructive step. at the same time, we recognize
7:12 am
there are many areas we need to continue to work on and the feeling was that the secretary, having continued conversation with the foreign minister and defense secretary hagel, having continued conversations would be the appropriate next step. host: the president has canceled meetings with the russian president. this was supposed to take place of the upcoming g-20 meeting in russia and we are getting your thoughts on that this morning. the telephone numbers are on your screen. a couple of facebook comments --
7:13 am
there are about 30 facebook comments and you can add to the conversation during the course of the morning. this is from texas, independent line. doesr: good morning, anyone else feel like president obama is behaving like a grade school child whose school made has not agreed to play the game with the same rules? he swells up and refuses to play. host: is that your thought? caller: yes, i feel like we are watching a child. host: what is the value of having these meetings? ofler: communications, one the most important things we have in life. host: nashville, georgia or -- it is communication but
7:14 am
what we do,ter these are foreign peoples. think he needs a plan be in place. we don't want to go over there and put our country into another war. we have been involved in every war that is taking place today. people don't understand. you keep taking countries but they are not looking at the price.
7:15 am
we are fighting two or three wars and it takes a lot of money. i think president obama will get a busy guy. host: you mean snowden? caller: yes, he will get this guy. you cannot sit down with a lot of countries and talk. we are already in conflict now. indiana,ver lake, independent line. caller: i would like to make a few comments. host: go ahead. caller: we are hearing a lot of stuff about the difference between obama and vladimir putin. on the one hand, is the vladimir putin going to gain any favor
7:16 am
from his constituents in russia or is obama going to gain more with his constituents in the united states? you know something? i think it is a delaying pact between both of them where we can get sold out on our freedom from both sides. host: meaning what? i hear callers say that we are going to get a certain amount of this or that. we are going to lose some of our freedoms and the united states dealing with about -- with vladimir putin. he is a kgb operative and always will be. the bear is not dead in russia. "roll call"ges of
7:17 am
could you talk about the decision from opm and what it does for staffers in congress looking at the affordable care act? what happened in this case was there was a provision in the affordable care act that basically said that members of congress and a lot of congressional staffers would be moving into the new health care exchanges to get there on health benefits that are provided to them as federal employees. rather than getting health benefits like most federal employees through the federal m. lee health benefit program, they would now get their insurance
7:18 am
the exchangesh that are established by the affordable care act for small businesses and people who are not insured and the like. that created a complication because it was not clear in the plain reading of the law that the federal government would be llowed to continue to pay premiums or subsidize the premiums for these employees. so the concernole was that once the exchange's kicked into effect, this federal employees who are congressional staffers and members, too, would have to pay all of their health- care costs out of pocket with opm. they said they have to move into
7:19 am
the exchanges. however, the government will continue in to pay the premium assistance for their policies once they are in the exchanges. is there a dollar figure attached to these premiums? generous federalmore policies could be five or 10 -- $5,000 for an individual and $10,000 for a family. it is not entirely clear how this will all work out yet with the opm guidance because one thing that is different with the way the exchange's work from the way the federal employee health benefit work is that in the exchanges, insurance chargees can policyholders more based on factors like age and whether or not you are a smoker.
7:20 am
that differs, really, as i understand it, from the federal employees health benefit plan where anyone who is a federal worker who opts for a specific policy on that sort of exchange pays the same amount. it is not clear out the subsidies will work when people who are individual employees are paying different rates. host: there is a line in your story that say some staffers would not have to join the exchanges. this is another weird quirk in this law that has infuriated a number of republican lawmakers. the original affordable care act provision exploited committee staff and some others.
7:21 am
you actually will have a two- tiered system where suppose forone is an employee example, suppose someone is an employee of senator barbara mikulski. that person would be on the exchange but if the same person was working for the same person at the appropriations committee, they might not be on the exchange. they might still get the federal employee benefits. that all also say lawmakers and staff -- you talk about premium tax credits. can you expand on that? saying that you cannot get two bites out of the same apple. there are a number of tax
7:22 am
credits that the affordable care act provides to help individuals purchase health insurance based on income and other factors. if you areying that a federal worker who works for a member of congress or you are a member of congress, you cannot claim the tax credit to help you buy health insurance on the exchange if the federal government is taking in money to help you pay that on the front end. you can't get both a tax credit and a subsidy. host: how did this become a story? guest: well - there are two sides to that. the first thing is what happened in the last couple of weeks. quietly something bad
7:23 am
theme an under current in capital over a number of weeks because staffers were getting concerned about how this was going to be implemented. as we understand it, president obama personally intervened to help get this opm decision made before the exchange's got up and running. that is the immediate tie. that no onething really wants to talk about necessarily on capitol hill. were notn lawmakers jumping at the decision. to either criticize it or praise it. perhaps because there is a risk of giving it too much attention. this is one thing where no one, even the people most -- who are
7:24 am
most urgent critics of health care law, members of congress, do not want to see their staff suddenly paying an exorbitant amount of money for their health benefits and run the risk of them either leaving their office to go to the private sector or somewhere else in the federal government where they can still get the federal employee benefits. host: thank you for joining us from "roll call." thank you for your time. here is one more story to show you from the associated press out of washington --
7:25 am
about theen talking cancellation of a meeting set to take place at the occoquan -- at the upcoming g20 between president obama and the russian president. forre getting your thoughts our remaining 20 minutes. here is patrick from carnegie, pa., democrats line. stupidity of canceling the meeting between our russian counterpart is so
7:26 am
monumental. not only have you empowered edward snowden allies support, -- who i support, by the way. that theemonstrates united states government is now controlled by the state of israel and that fascist regime and dancinging around president obama like a puppet. caller: i am from ashland, ohio. ishink the reason why obama not going over there is we are fixing to go into world war three. we've got all these ships and thebacking up japan and
7:27 am
philippines and taiwan. we've got stuff in thailand. we are going into vietnam and russia has just put three warships in cuba. going to president is the summit but he is not meeting with the russian president. he is planning a summit but not taking the meeting with the russian president. caller: why would he go? edward christian from a twitter -- that is another way to participate this morning. is the topic for the next
7:28 am
20 minutes or so. this is from "the usa today." good morning from new hampshire, independent line. one of the few things i have ever agreed with obama on is not meeting with the russians. made it clear very early that things have changed with the russians by telling the ambassador he can no longer used a garage that had to come around front and use the normal entry. every once in awhile, you just
7:29 am
have to slap a rushing to get their attention. host: do you think not going to this meeting -- how does that affect -- a couple of more tweets -- if you want to give us a call, the phone number is will be on your screen. this was a cancellation decision by the white house. democrats' line is next. clipr: you showed a little from the state department spokesperson. if you had showed it further,
7:30 am
they showed a picture of vladimir putin and president obama meeting and when they visually, picture, vladimir putin looked stronger. obama looked kind of closed in so i think it shows that heads of state like presidents and vladimir putin are at different and and they normally discuss stuff that is not that important. that clip will go around the world and it made the u.s. look a lot weaker. host: what do you think about the decision to cancel? caller: i think people should not get-about what obama is doing. a should realize he is just a figurehead. it is like the queen in england. that little clip and really what is going on in snowden exposat
7:31 am
is more important. we will never see that. the decision to close the meeting is like a temper tantrum. it is not that important host: edward snowden was the topic of that state department briefing where they talked about the united states and what they will do with edwards noted. [video clip] >> we would like to see him return to the united states but i don't know technically what that requires that they have the capability to do that. to revokeld like them this status? >> that is what it requires, our position has remained of the same period host: that as part of the issues leading up to the cancellation of this meeting. there are other issues that have been laid out in the papers this morning. if you want to give your thoughts on the cancellation --
7:32 am
a couple of other stores in the papers looking at issues of the military -- this is a story about across- the-board cuts in the defense department. it is time to see some of the money we spend on were to do nation-building at home. the article says we have the best trained and equipped military in history. president obama said the marines
7:33 am
are the best military force and the world and he says he will keep it that way. erie, pa., democrats line, good morning. caller: good morning, i want to get my opinion out. i think president obama is doing the right thing by not going to meet with vladimir putin. from the last pictures when they met together, it is like vladimir putin did not like president obama. maybe he is a racist. snow was right in putting that stuff out, why didn't he stay here? why did he run? this makes him look bad for the people who say he was right. if you are right and doing the
7:34 am
right thing, why don't you stand up and stay? arizona, republican line. caller: good morning, i'd think -- putin did the right thing i think mr. obama did the right thing. he should not have talked to vladimir putin. he is still planning on the summit but not meeting with vladimir putin. it's about time he stopped getting pushed around. host: from "the washington post" -
7:35 am
sherry next from hamden, connecticut. caller: i agree with president attend decision not to the meeting with vladimir putin. because of how he treated us with snowden but also he is no longer allowing americans to adopt russian citizens. there are other issues involved i think in the decision of president obama. is attending the summit so it
7:36 am
is not like he is not attending at all. that they don't like each other. if you look at their meeting, it looks like they don't like each other. i don't think it is about them diplomatically but i don't think -- i kind of think they howt like each other host: you think this decision affects future relations between the two countries? caller: i think eventually, they will come together again. right now, both of them have their own stand. i think we should -- [indiscernible] host: dwight d. you think it is important? caller: we can still be who we are as americans and have a
7:37 am
disagreement with another country and still support that country and be a participant. the whole world participate in the g-20 meeting. host: from facebook- from florida, caro, independent line. caller: i cannot understand why back innts snowden america because of breaking laws. whenever obama and holder have done everything under the sun. they have lied and expect snowden to be so nice. are they hypocrites? that's my comment.
7:38 am
aside, what do you think about the cancellation of the meeting? caller: definitely cancel it. believe vladimir putin is right. snowden has a right to be there. obama just want him back because he wants to punish him does notctions but he want to promise the rest of his cabinet for what they do. it is so hypocritical. i am an independent. host: the lead story from " the new york times" takes a look at the shifting of message data by the national security agency.
7:39 am
does not want joining us from tennessee, independent line. we are talking about the cancellation of the summit
7:40 am
between president obama and president vladimir putin. what do you think? caller: the caller from florida hit the nail on the head. it is hypocrisy. to ben is alleged spilling state secrets. he says we have been spying on people and hear you have obama and his administration saying -- telling exactly how they got terrorist information and we no longer have that terrorist information. he would get slapped around by putin for his hypocrisy. host:"the wall street journal" adds -
7:41 am
from maryland, democrat line -- caller: i'm from michigan. snowdenyou believe that was right or wrong, we should be made aware when our government espying especially on its own citizens. i don't agree with the caller who said he should stand up for what he said. whether he was right or wrong or whether you agree or not, our government will want to put him in jail to keep his mouth shut so he does not let out any other information. of course he will not stand up
7:42 am
willse of our government silence him or hurt them and that is why he is hiding. it is not because he does not believe and what he's said. host: what do you think about relations between russia and the united states? extremelyis is an rich -- important relationship between us and them and i think miniscule itself is compared to the relationship we should continue and still have. i don't think they snowden snowden thing is that big a deal to mess up that relationship. from ohio, independent line. caller: whether he meets with putin or not or whether he announces it is purely symbolic. the substance of the meetings are usually handled by others
7:43 am
and whether presidents meet has historically happened over time. host: this is a public postponement. that is why is making news. caller: it is just symbolic. it has no real meaning at all. host: even the sense it was postponed has no meeting -- meaning? caller: precisely. democrat line -- apparently, russia made a statement a few weeks ago about the n s a surveillance program. i want to elaborate. if they know about the program, why didn't they say anything about it? why did they rely on snowden. ? host: what are your thoughts on the cancellation? think it is an
7:44 am
imperative relationship to have think if thebut i relations are deteriorated, there is onlya piont you can reach after so long. i think obama made the right decision to cancel. maybe they can improve relations going forward, who knows? host: a story about egypt to this morning from "the washington post" -
7:45 am
one more call on the topic of the postponement or cancellation from berkshire, mass., independent line, good morning. caller: good morning, i'd love cspan. given the track record of this administration, i don't believe they actually canceled this. probably putin canceled it and they have to spin it around. this administration has a record of being so dishonest host: intelligence and data gathering will be the subject of our next guest, john shiffman from
7:46 am
anters and talking about enforcement division within the dea. on the program, whitey bulger is now in the jury phase of his trial. we will talk about that. we will do that and more. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ turned away from the
7:47 am
needs of others, we align ourselves with those forces that are about this suffering. >> it is a pulpit and you should take advantage of it. >> obesity in this country is nothing short of a public health crisis. somebody had their own agenda. >> it is a shame to waste it. >> i think they serve as a window on the past to what was going on with american women. >> she becomes the chief confidante. she is the only one in the world he can trust them not many women who were first lady's or journalists and wrote books. >> they are, in many cases, quite frankly it more interesting as human beings than their husbands. if only because they are not first and foremost limited by
7:48 am
political ambition. >> eleanor roosevelt is one of the unsung heroes. -- edith rhodes about is one of the unsung heroes. breathlessa little and i think it was a little too fast. there was not enough to change. >> yes, ma'am. >> in every case, the first lady has relate done what ever fit her personality and interests. >> later wrote in her memoir that she said i, myself, never made any decision. i only decided what was important and when to presented to my husband. the stop and think about how much power that is, it is a lot of power. the battle against cancer is to fight to the fear that
7:49 am
accompanies the disease. >> she transformed the way we bugaboos and made it possible for countless people to survive and to flourish as a result. i don't know how many presidents have that kind of impact on the way we live our lives. >> just walking around the white house grounds, i am constantly reminded about all of the people who have been there before and, particularly, all the women >> "first ladies: influence and damage" produced in cooperation with the white house historical society and season to "premieres september 9. "washington journal" continues.
7:50 am
host: joining us now is john shiffman and has had a series of stories looking at intelligence gathered taking place within the drug enforcement agency. tell us about this program. what did you discover? guest: i worked with my colleague and we found the dea program that has been public for many years called the special operations division located in virginia. but a lot of what they do is public and coordinating international cases like the case against the russian arms broker, they also had a part of special operations that they did not publicize at all. they take tips from intelligence agencies, from informants, foreign governments, domestic wiretaps, and a large database
7:51 am
which is different than they nsa record and that pass them along to agents in the field. while this is perfectly acceptable, probably acceptable, to pass along the tips, what happens next raises questions. the agency has been instructed to create something called parallel construction. case,s once they make a they act as if they never got the information. they might get a tip that a drug dealer will be in a certain place at a certain time. agent will follow a car and, they will make a pre textual traffic stop. they will find drugs inside but the only reason they need to follow the car is from the tip. the agents and the police and the field must recreate their
7:52 am
investigative reports. they are supposed to leave out any trace that they got this tip from special operations. the problem with that say some critics is that that means the defendant will not have access to certain information that is part of their constitutional right to a fair trial. host: when it comes up in court, how is it explained by the agents? the agent might be asked how this investigation started. written that the investigation started when i noticed this car made an unsafe lane change or the person was acting suspiciously and they pulled over. the truth of the matter is they need to target that person because there had been either an ns ina to set, a tip from a foreign government or an informant or some other reason there were passed along with
7:53 am
this information from the special operations division of dea. host: we will take your calls on this. this special operations division -- if you want to ask questions about how it works, etc, here is your chance to do so -- you can also send us a tweet - you can also send us an e-mail. --t to get this straight essentially, you say the officers to conduct these cases with information have to go back and treat it like they picked up this tip on their own n?tac
7:54 am
that's what they're supposed to say. we published another story today going back through some of -- our database. we found instructions for irs agents to do the same thing from the information they get from the dea. all the information agencies are partners with special operations division. all of these agencies are receiving information. the big ones are the irs, fbi, ice, and the d a. agencies all these passing on information? guest: it works both ways one of the reasons the dea says this is legal is because they do it every day.
7:55 am
defense attorneys and former judges and a couple prosecutors tell us it should not be. that is works both waysthe dea part of the connect the dots intelligence sharing that should happen post-9/11. host: we will take some calls, alabama, republican line. we are talking about the special operations division in the dea. good morning. he has left us. as far as the size and scope of the division itself, it is a sense of what kind of information they hold and how much and if there are rules as to how long they hold on to this information. the specialhing operations division has is a database called dice.
7:56 am
that is one with a coordinate and send information out nationally. it is an acronym. seems to change a little. i cannot recall what the current iteration is. we have a lot of acronyms and washington. it is a database that is different from the nsa database because it includes information collected lawfully from search warrants and subpoenas andsays the dea. if they are investigating you for drugs and they did a subpoena and got your phone records, the numbers you've dialed and the numbers you dial you would be in that database. if they are investigating me, they would do the same thing. it would not be the contents of evercall but they metadata,
7:57 am
is on your phone bill. then they will put -- they will do that for every drug case in the united states and take that information and put it into the database. a guy across the border was caught with $100,000 and would not say anything. inside his fund, they found four numbers and ran the numbers and it popped up with another case in the southeastern united states. they were able to put together a money-laundering and drug case together. the problem comes when these cases go to trial. and themplicated but defendant that goes to trial has a right to see any evidence that might be helpful or relevant to his case. attorneys say by systematically exporting
7:58 am
informational like the connections made by the dice itabase or other wiretaps, is unconstitutional to show -- to say we will not shared that information. from this information came a shoe leather type investigations? nsa : for example, if the intercepts information on a onple of kilos of marijuana a boat, the nsa does not sit on the information. ory pass it onto the dea passes on to someone else to make an arrest. if they make the arrest, when they make the arrest, the boat might be said to be moving too fast in navigational waters. they come up with a reason to board the ship.
7:59 am
they cannot act like they got lucky. it is just dishonest. people onre several the boat like people who really ,ave nothing to do with drugs children, wives, spouses or whatever, the information that the nsa wiretap -- there may be information if the defense lawyers can dig into that that may be relevant to show innocence and all sorts of things. system precludes this. host: from our independent line, good morning. caller: good morning, i am very much against violations of our rights by using the fear tactics. be competenthould
8:00 am
enough to keep us from harm. without violating our civil rights. in my situation, and if this could happen to me, it could mypen to anybody, competition wanted to steal from me. i ended up on a terrorist list. i cannot fly to court. i was falsely imprisoned. never charges brought, my case has been expunged. i discovered the parties involved and the violations, they got more defensive. ok, thanks for the call. i want to show you a tweet that says this is a total bypass of the world's a probable cause. when issues probable cause and the other issue is
8:01 am
discovering in which the government turns over relevant evidence to the defense. in terms of probable cause, i -- i havesed to learn been covering law enforcement for a long time and wrote a book with an fbi agent and never heard anything like this am and i know plenty of people at the irs and they are honest. my mom worked at the irs for a long time. i was surprised to learn that making a pretextual stop is -- you know, the supreme court law is sustainablew to the police in that manner. it surprised me and a lot of people. what outrages the prosecutors and former judges and defense
8:02 am
lawyers is the issue of discovery and turning over the information that might be helpful. when i met with the dea, they .aid they did this scrupulously there was the ted stevens case, senator ted stevens of alaska, and his charges were thrown out after it was confirmed by the judge that the prosecution withheld exculpatory evidence, discovery evidence. the dojea told me that had review of all discovery procedures and that this procedure was reviewed. i asked at the dea for a copy of their review and the paperwork but they declined to make it available. host: watertown, tennessee, republican line. youer: first of all, thank for your work in this area. there needs to be more reporters
8:03 am
like you doing this sort of thing. i will speak to what i saw with my own two eyes. in the early 1990's i was a military pilot, and we were involved in the drug war. violation ofemic rules, and that is that the drugary found alleged runners and tracked them, and when it came time for trial, customs agent or dea agent would show up and testify that it was then that started the case and all the stuff they saw, you on the case, but the fact is it was all u.s. military personnel and equipment . i/o is thought that was not right. thought that was not right.
8:04 am
but that is the system and it might still be going on. guest: that is interesting. i talked to a couple people like yourself who were in the military and involved in this. i think it is really something to explore. the military is authorized in 's two,g war in the 1990 throughout central america and get involved, and you see through some of the wikileaks andes how closely the dea the latin american government worked together. "new york times" did a story on that about a year ago. the relationship between the military and the dea goes back probably before the dea was even created, going back to vietnam and some of the things the intelligence community was doing related to drugs. i wonder what is happening today. host: the dea saying that drug
8:05 am
cartels are linked to terrorists . guest: i do not think it is in the secret, you know, when they testify on the hill about the special operations division, it is one part of the special operations division. when the dea talks about the special operations division, has press conferences -- not at their headquarters necessarily, but they are talking about some very important in nature cases. there is no question that drugs are an international issue, drug importation. but what we are focusing on here are cases that remain inside the united states against americans, but also foreigners who were arrested here inside the united states. it is one thing to use the intelligence, i think, being overseas in africa or central america am a afghanistan and
8:06 am
pakistan sort of the primary in i -- and the dea is think 80 countries or something around the world. they have a larger presence overseas than the fbi, which is understandable because drugs cross borders and that is part of the whole economic makeup. host: why not just say i got the information from the s.o.d.? guest: that is a really good question. the dea says it needs to protect their sources and methods. there is a process for classified information already, and they're his -- there is also a process for in form and information. there is the classified information procedures act and then of course the fisa procedures. what is interesting is in both of those cases, the government filed a public notice. it is just a page or two and
8:07 am
says we intend to use fisa evidence or we have fisa evidence in this haze. same thing with the classified information procedures act. defense lawyers said, why can't we use that for this? there may be a case or two where they do that. it is really hard to tell because it is classified. att: republicans can call in 202-585-3881. democrats, 202-585-3880. .ndependents, 202-585-3882 caller: this is part of the .otal information awareness act we have got different secretive agencies. let's get to the bone of this. when you have a government that dictates what you can and cannot
8:08 am
put into your own body, by the very definition, you're living .nder a tear any that is what we have here. what we looking at is the dea -- they manage is called recently inut using the military conjunction with police action. we now have a police state. and john gotti and the mob, it is like the drug trade. we are not in the drug trade. we cannot compete with the government. it is interesting, a lot of people are talking -- when they hear about this, they think about 9/11 and all the changes that were made after the 9/11 attacks. this procedure, this process that the s.o.d. has been doing
8:09 am
was in place before 9/11. it was in place in the late 1990 's. my colleague and i spoke with agents stretching from the early 1990's to present day who say this process was long and play and it is not the parallel construction or the legal aspects of whether this was ok to do, but in the 9/11 report, there is the document that talks about with the dea has been doing for a long time in terms of intelligence- sharing. so this is not something we just decided to do after 9/11. this has been going on for 20 years. does this program get review by the justice department? the justice now department is reviewing -- after our board on monday, the white house said the justice department is reviewing the procedures. mike rogers, the head of the --elligence committee, said
8:10 am
he is a former fbi agent, he said he needs to get out the facts and understands why the dea needs to operate internationally and to interact interact with the nsa. but he was on a show and said that they are re-creating investigations in parallel constructions is a new concept and he is comfortable with it. a couple other people on the hill have also commented on it, including senator rand paul. of reutersshiffman is joining us. let's take a call. caller: good morning. let me ask a question. i am listening to your comments and you said you have extensive writing about criminal justice issues. i do not have a criminal justice background, but just from my casual reading of events for the last couple of years, why is it,
8:11 am
in your opinion, that the government is allowed, even from the local the tech gives to now mislead whenie and they deal with suspects? the government gets away with things that the person who is underscoring the cannot it away with. i will take the answer off the phone. well, i think it is interesting, a lot of people think that the police should not lie or that they should be honest all the time. i mean, it would be almost impossible to catch many people in the act. the supreme court has said that the police can be deceptive in their dealings with criminals, especially when they go undercover. i will say that one of the least understood aspects of law is that it is a crime to do this to
8:12 am
a federal agent. in reverse, you can do this -- you can go to jail for up to a year. there are some people that are not just lying to the grand jury in a formal setting but on phone interviewstraight up when the fbi comes to your house. if you lie to the agent during that interview, then it is a felony. host: wisconsin, you're up next, independent line. hearing you i am say is we have police and prosecutors were violating the law of the land, the u.s. constitution, and engaging in perjury. i am wondering if the department of justice -- i do not expect the answer is yes, but if anybody's looking into this? those people are criminals. are they being charged? are they being subject to prosecution and jail time? is this a one-way street where our authorities can break the law and the citizenry pays the price?
8:13 am
then why should i follow the law of the land or play by the rules myself? during the reagan era, police were running drugs for our government. seems to me that this drug war is kind of nuts. was asked carney about it at the white house briefing on monday and said the justice department is reviewing it. it is really all i know. program itself can oversight from congress? guest: the special operations division, again, has had a lot .f air time on the hill but it is a different part of the special operations division. it would be as if you had c- span3 and you testified at length about c-span1 and c-span2 but we never talked about c- span3 and they were doing the things that were certainly of interest and needed some
8:14 am
oversight. the hill, when dea goes to the hill, a lot of discussion is about drug the drug crisis. it is not about the actual process of trying to prosecute the drug war. department, who is responsible to make sure the information is not used in an inappropriate way? guest: the dea is part of the justice department. and the dea has justice department and they have lawyers and they in virginia oversee it. i do not exactly know what they do. one thing that was really interesting is when i asked the dea about this, i said, how widespread is the use of this? they said, well -- and how often does it work? they said that we really never
8:15 am
hear back. so i said how do you track if it is a discovery violation? they say that they are comfortable with their policies. aam not going to get into legal argument with you. in onhow were you clued this program in the first place? guest: i write about law enforcement. and ultimately got a hold of some of these training documents that are used for to come in is going contact -- not anybody, but some agents who will come into contact with the special operations division. the document shows them how to do it. says you should re- create the investigative trail. but yesterday we found this irs manual for irs agents, and it was actually published for two essentiallytracks
8:16 am
the same thing but just written in lawyer ease. host: the irs manual details the dea's use of hidden intel evidence. our guest is describing him talking about the program. charles, illinois, independent line. caller: thanks for taking the call. i just really want to say i feel as though the so-called war on drugs is the biggest exercise of organized crime in human history. when you hear the stories over decades and decades of truly abuses and injuries done to innocent people and not just cocaine-sniffers and pot smokers but bystanders having nothing to do with it and it being perpetrated by individuals making untraceable cash,
8:17 am
probably among the largest industry on the planet. you know, energy, oil, drugs. and it is all done by virtue of people doing takes no harm to any other person and makes them criminals. when you listen to the callers and those inday favor of ending this heinous exercise, it should be apparent. when you look at the people who are speaking out, judge james mcnamara, sheriff there are endless examples of smart people on both sides of politics. guest: one of the former agents who was in the dea for 20 years that i interviewed -- i interviewed a couple of agents that belong to an organization , law enforcement
8:18 am
against prohibition. they believe that drugs should be legalized or decriminalized. one of the agents i spoke with, he said that the way that this process works with the special operations division, it is like laundering information, just like money laundering, but they launder the information to make it legal. the legalization and the drug have always been front stage issues. right now with what is going on in colorado and washington, even more so. caller: thanks for taking my call. just to sort of agree with the previous caller, yeah, i think anybody that seriously and honestly looks at this so-called war on drugs, it is a complete
8:19 am
failure. so the question to the gentleman is, is there any real serious debate on legalizing drugs? to the wholehreat security establishment? and i will take my answer off- line. thanks. well, certainly in colorado and washington where marijuana is not now legal but , andbe in a couple months they just had the first medical marijuana sale in washington, d.c., a couple weeks ago, i think. it is being debated around the world and seriously debated now in certain countries. to criminalize or legalize. so i think it is certainly out there.
8:20 am
really, what we're talking about here though is civil liberties. the law right now, the critics of the s.o.d. program say the law right now as it stands could prevent them from doing what they are doing, which is taking information and using it for investigations but then hiding that information when these cases go to trial. this there is a story morning, according to the substance abuse and mental health services administration, the number of people who say they have used heroine jumped if -- to5% to $620,000 620,000 -- host: do those cases fall within what happens at the s.o.d. and dea? guest: s.o.d. just did a major synthetic drug take down a
8:21 am
states,eeks ago in 37 hundreds of arrests. they cordon it, but i do not know if they pass -- and they coordinate, but i do not know if they passed the tip long. i really do not know. sense of there is no what has been done with the tips once they have been passed on? guest: they turn out to be true about 60% of the time, which is pretty good for just getting a call and pulling over a car and you find cocaine in the car. talk to, about half of them say this is a very important, legitimate thing that they do. the other half say they can see how people would raise questions about it. again, it is not just about getting the information and using it to make an arrest. that is not really what troubles
8:22 am
the defense. what troubles them is the fact that they do not get the information, that they do not know that this happened, that this is being concealed in a way that could jeopardize somebody's constitutional right to see exculpatory evidence and have a fair trial. host: georgia, independent line. one, i wasckly here, on a navy ship in the mid-1980's and we were setting up blockades cuts in therent caribbean. seven or eight ships, spending tremendous amounts of money. and we carried the coast guard unit on board that would actually go over and board the ships. intelligence was coming out of tampa, through the dea, i suppose. i do not really know. we spend, ity that seems to be incredible. that is just one thing.
8:23 am
but but then the money for putting the prisoners in jail. i am backing up what everybody is saying. this war on drugs and constitutional rights being stepped all over here because we are not able to even defend ourselves in court because it is classified. you have answered this many times, but i had to put my two cents in. has there reaction been among civil libertarians to your story? those type of groups. guest: some of the leading from the defense bar, the aclu, the national association of criminal defense lawyers put out a statement saying that this practice seems wrong. their statements are much stronger than that. i just do not remember. orml has chimed in on this.
8:24 am
there has been some talk of the hill. the chairman of the intelligence committee is on the homeland security committee talk about civil liberties -- the chairman of the intelligence committee aul who is on the homeland security committee talk about civil liberties. it took about these the -- the snowden database, the telephone database that he gave to the guardian and to the post, is somehow related to this, the internal domestic telephone numbers. differentwo databases, but it is true that the nsa evening information to the dea, passing onto the irs and criminal cases, and that is something that i think is catching people's attention. those kind of stories have
8:25 am
come out in the last few weeks. howl forthcoming was the dea once easterday tracking this down -- how forthcoming was the dea? guest: i would not do any on the record interviews, but i went to the dea and met for two hours with two of the senior officials. i did an interview and a back- and-forth explaining -- they gave their point of view and i told him what i knew. they provided a lot of context. for example, one of the cases that we found was we found a prosecutor in florida, a federal prosecutor. -- it a case where he was was a cocaine case, i believe. anyway, the dea agent came to him and said, look, we have arrested this guy. the prosecutor said, ok, great,
8:26 am
tell me about the case. and he said he got a tip from an informant and this is what happened. so he goes to the agent and says, hey, tell me more about this informant. i need to know because informants can come in all stripes. they can also be completely crooked. -- he was pressed and pressed and kept deflecting. he was pushed. finally, they call the prosecutor and said it was not an informant. we got information from an nsa intercept. the prosecutor went bananas because he said this is going around the rule of law. . this is lying. this is deceptive, not a great way to start a case. he dumped the case. i present did that to the dea, and they said that should never happen and that agents are not instructed to lie. there just instructed to admit the information.
8:27 am
one of the things about washington reporting they can be helpful and also incredibly frustrating is that you do background interviews. you cannot use any names of the people, which is a double-edged sword because you really want to get information right, and then we also have this thing in washington where people have bug proof rooms so you cannot record the conversations. you cannot bring any electronics and. you can only take notes. so i cannot say verbatim exactly what they said. host: utah, paul, independent line. caller: good morning. i was wondering how deep you alleve the corruption and the federal agencies are, including the state and local,
8:28 am
concerning drug interdiction and the amount of money involved in alongside other elements? guest: i would not know. i have written a lot about corruption, drugs and otherwise. but i think there is as much corruption in the united states, to some degree, as there is in other countries, at all levels. i used to work in philadelphia and one of the most famous corruption cases ended this week when one of the most powerful politicians returned home after spending four years in prison on corruption charges. there is no relation to drugs there, but there is corruption all over the place. there are lots of good people, for federal law enforcement and for state and local. but i think there is corruption in any place. viewer system will need to remember that early in the process, they are supposed to
8:29 am
issue a war and only on probable cause. cause, right.e in this situation, as i said, there are four different ways that i know of that the dea disseminates the information. one of them is through information that originally antes from a search warr or from a wiretap. for a domestic wiretap, you need a judge to sign off on it appeared i have read these affidavits, and they are laws. many of them are hundred pages long. the rules are very tight in the united states. i think there is a misunderstanding about how the rules work. an agent that does a wiretap has and taped it. every 10 days they have to send a report to the the judge. they have to renew it every 30 days. i am talking about domestic,
8:30 am
ordinary, not terrorism intercepts. it is very complicated. people start talking about personal things. the agents are instructed to turn the volume down and not to listen to them. whether they do that or not, i do not know. presumably some do. so there is probable cause. you do need probable cause to get a warrant, but we're not talking about probable cause here. the other issue is the discovery issue which is the issue of having available -- having evidence available at trial that they might use against you. kathleen from damon, ohio, democrat line. met a young man who was studying at a university on a fulbright scholarship. he was from afghanistan. and hisere studying wife and children and family were all back in that country. but we talked not only about the history of their war with russia
8:31 am
-- he was only 34 so he lived his whole life during wars in that country. but we talked about the poppy production there. i was reading harrowing usage in the u.s. and heroin usage in afghanistan having gone up a .reat deal i am wondering how the dea works in afghanistan, because he said the dea works in many countries. and also in afghanistan. i also wanted to ask -- host: we are running out of time, so we will let our guest respond. a fairlye dea has large presence in afghanistan. they have several teams that are paramilitary teams. they do not really like to talk about these teams. sure, heavily involved in the indices. the dea has sent agents over to
8:32 am
spend lots of time in afghanistan. they work very closely with the u.s. military and i am sure the embassy and state department there. , thanks forhiffman your time. coming up, an organized crime figure from the 1980's arrested in 2011. kevin cullen will talk about the trial of james "whitey" bulger. from awe will hear member of the national cancer institute talking about the recent survey of the board of advisors talking about changing the definition of cancer. we will take up those two segments later on in the program. first, an update from c-span radio. .> more on yemen the associated press reports that a suspected u.s. drone strike on a central province in the country has killed six more alleged al qaeda militants. this is the sixth u.s. drone
8:33 am
strike in the past 10 days, bringing the total suspected .ilitants killed to 29 yemen is on a high state of alert after authorities revealed an al qaeda plot to target foreign embassies and international shipping lanes in the red sea. the u.s. and british embassies have been evacuated. staff evacuated over threaten attacks. in march, north korea said it was readjusting and restarting all facilities at its main complex. today, the u.s.-based institute checking north korea's knickers wet -- nuclear weapons program says recent satellite photos show the countries doubling the size of its uranium enrichment plant, including the close plutonium reactor. it can be used to create energy and the core of nuclear weapons. turning to politics, the hill that the national republican campaign committee is trying to raise money off a get well soon card for former
8:34 am
president george w. bush after he underwent heart surgery. in an e-mail to supporters, the nrcc writes that the procedure went according to plan and bush is in good spirits. president george w. bush courageously defended our freedom and our country, and we are missing his days in office now more than ever. the mail also contains a link byking supporters to chip in donating money to help us send president bush a bouquet of bluebonnets, the texas state flower. also, this message from the kremlin. russian president vladimir putin today is wishing george w. bush a speedy recovery. speaking of former president, from a member of the washington post the fix -- it was 39 years ago today that richard nixon announced he would resign. those are some of the latest headlines on c-span radio. suburb some sort of anti-
8:35 am
person who thinks everybody needs to live in new york city. comingensitive to be across as a condo-dwelling elitist of some kind. that is not why i did this book. i understand why people like the suburbs. i get fed up with a lot of daily life in new york city. undeniablewere so and the fact that there is a shift in the way suburban america is perceived, it is too big a story to ignore. >> where the american dream is moving, sunday night at 9:00, part of book tv this weekend on .-span2 c-span, we bring public affairs events from washington directly to you, putting you in the remake congressional hearings, white house events, briefings briefings, and conferences, and offering complete coverage of the u.s. house, all as a public
8:36 am
service of private industry. c-span, created by the cable tv industry 34 years ago and funded by your local cable or satellite provider. now you can watch us in hd. >> "washington journal" continues. host: joining us for -- from , aton is kevin cullen columnist for the boston globe, and co-author of "whitey bulger ." thanks for being here. to start off with, who is james "whitey" bulger? >> he is probably the preeminent irish-american gangster at this time. he is on trial right now for violent crimes, extortion, drug dealing, night scene murders. but what is most significant, what sets him apart from a john villager or an al capone or anybody else you put in the kb
8:37 am
on of crime figures in america is that he corrupted the fbi. an extent thath the fbi were his accomplices. the fbi helped him identify people for murder in the 1980's. he was recruited by the fbi in 1975, because the f b i had a national policy of the time of taking out the mafia. all over the country, the fbi recruited criminals that would know something about the mafia. one problem with the national not take that it does into account regional differences. unlike any other place in boston, theough irish gangsters rivaled the mafia when they can to influence, particularly when it came to lethal ability. the irish guys killed many more people than the violence -- and then the italians in this town. whitey bulger was a killer, but he was recruited by the fbi
8:38 am
provide information about the mafia. that went awry because whitey bulger started using them more than they used him. we made it out in extraordinary , how much thebook fbi actually went out of its wake, not just to look the other way when whitey bulger murdered people, but to actually support the honest attempts by decent law enforcement to take whitey bulger down. at one point he was the suspect homicides over two years in the 1980's. one in miami. and again when hit on the waterfront and boston. the fbi went out of its way to its own people. fbi agents in oklahoma tried to do the right thing but they were lied to by people and boston
8:39 am
with approval of the fbi headquarters in washington. talking about the whitey bulger case and what has been going on in the last few weeks, leading up to the jury which is now in the decision- making phase. he will take your questions as well. if you have questions for him, give us a call. 202-585-3881 for republicans. 202-585-3880 for democrats. independents.or cpsanwj.can tweet us @ what about the prosecution and defense? guest: the prosecution has been very matter of fact. there is a mountain of evidence. this trial has been going on for two month, and the prosecution has spent three quarters of the time and the defense was much shorter. it only lasted a week. but there is murder after murder, victim after victim.
8:40 am
there was a steady parade of killers, thugs, and drug dealers am a all of whom had cut deals with the government. --t becomes a defense plan the defense says you cannot trust any of these guys. they are all killers, drugs, and drug dealers, and you cannot believe anything they say. at the end of the day, it was very noticeable, the different approach. it outernment just laid and set him and his friends were the most dangerous people on the 30eets of boston for 20 to years and he needs to be held accountable. the defense strategy was the opposite. the defense lawyers do not use the word a quick, but they very specifically asked the jury to acquit without saying the word. forr client has a message the government that the fbi should be punished for protecting whitey bulger all those years.
8:41 am
basically saying that a serial murderer walk free because the government corruption was so bad. , they arehouse charged with running a terrible fraternity, and one of the characters says the charges are trumped up and we're not going to listen to this, this is an attack on the fraternity system. and that is an attack on the united states and we will not have the united states insulted. in all the delta boys walked out of the courtroom. that is what it felt to me. it actually felt absurd to listen to the defense. but that is all they had going for them. even conceded in their opening statement and again in their closing statement that their client is what he is, a gangster. he is a criminal, a drug dealer who has made millions from drugs. is ais town, whitey bulger part of it, including his brother who was one of the most senior politicians, longtime president of the massachusetts
8:42 am
senate and became the president of the university of massachusetts. he and others always said that whitey never touched drugs. there was a claim that whitey cap drugs. i lived in that area during his time. there were more drugs in south boston and any other section of the city. yet, there were people that clung to that myth. whitey bulger spent his entire criminal career creating this narrative, and he was a good bad guy. he was a gangster with scruples. gangsters with scruples do not read on their friends and they certainly do not murder women. those were the only two things whitey bulger refuted during the trial. he said he was not an fbi informant, despite the record. he said he did not kill two women who were among the 19 victims he was charged of killing. he does not care about the other stuff. he knows he's going to die in prison. my co-author and i got letters he wrote from jail after his arrest in santa monica in 2011 in which he said i know i'm
8:43 am
going to die in jail but i do not kill those women and i am not a rat. that is all he cares about. he is not trying to get acquainted. he is trying to get even. host: our guest has written a book on this topic, "whitey bulger." first call, republican line. you are on with kevin cullen of the boston globe. caller: good morning. my question is multifaceted. when they prosecuted al capone, he got 11 years for tax evasion. if they had charged whitey with tax evasion, bookmaking, and maybe jaywalking, that would have definitely given him more than -- he would have died in jail. but these prosecutors opened the door to everything, absolutely everything. , because hetey wanted to defend his legacy as
8:44 am
far as killing women and so on, chose not to testify. it was going to be his last chose not to do it. i do not understand why he did not testify. i do. i think i think he was afraid of being cross examined by the prosecutor . once he testifies, he opens himself to everything. if i and the prosecutor, i go back to his teenage days and ask about the sexual assault he was charged with. he was not convicted but they could ask about it. hebrew trade himself as a great patriot. he -- he portrayed himself as a great patriot. he did three years in the air force. i would ask him about inc. charged with with rape during the korean war. but there was him trying to slain himself -- in 1956, he gave up his bank robbery accomplices. they robbed a bank in indiana
8:45 am
and here in massachusetts. he gave up his accomplice in -- he gave up his accomplices. it is clear that he identified these people for the fbi you're at so he was an informant or what they call a rat as far back as the 1950's. he cannot live with being challenged on that. he had nothing to lose. you can say he is preserving issues for appeal, but that makes no sense to me. that said, when he is sentenced, and he will be sentenced, he gets to say something. i imagine he will give us this spiel anyway. but he does not want to be cross examined with i was never a rat and night to not kill these women. you will hear that in his sentencing. maple, florida, democrat line. , is he surprised
8:46 am
that the jury is still the liberating? guest: i am not. it is a good question. it is an open and shut case. the defense really only contested maybe three or four of the 32 counts. they do not really mount a defense. he said he did not kill bette davis. he did not kill the other woman. bookie. a i think the jury is being meticulous. it is a massive and diet meant -- indictment. when i hear people saying that the jury will come back today -- we do not know. yesterday the judge provided some instructions. the jury had a number of questions. they were concerned because they do not have agreement on all of the counts. in the racketeering account, this is unusual -- he is charged
8:47 am
racketeering. of you only have to be convicted of two for racketeering and that pits you away basically for the rest of your life. the judge said if you cannot agree on one charge, you can leave it blank. you can say guilty, not guilty, or leave it blank. so i think that the instructions should speed it along. host: what is the makeup of the jury? eight-man, four women. one african-american. it is typical. federal juries tend to be suburban in the background. they tend to be from the greater austin area here. people make millions of dollars trying to do it, and believe me, i do not make millions of dollars. host: massachusetts, independent line. caller: good morning. about senate president billy
8:48 am
bulger, how much did whitey's toutation and bold in him incriminate other legislators and shakedown corporations to basically get done what he wanted to get done? a good question, and it is very hard to quantify. all i can tell you is we interviewed a number of legislators for this book. a number of them had gone on record saying when they were in ,onference with bill bolger they felt like there was power behind the throne. the late mayor of boston believed that whitey was going to kill him in the 1970's when the home of the bulgers was torn apart. kevin white absolutely feared for his life. he thought that whitey was going to kill him because of the political stance. while doing research for our book, we found that whitey
8:49 am
bulger went out of his way to intimidate and politically attack people that he perceived as a political enemies of his brother. that included my newspaper, the boston globe, which whitey and another accomplice briefly shot up at the height of the boston crisis because of the globe's support for desegregation. they fired bullets into the front of the globe possibility. the net -- the next night there was a massive police presence on the front and they went around the back and did it again. the other one admitted that he did it. he was proud of it. we obtained a letter that whitey sent from jail after his arrest in which he was very proud of the fact that he shot up the boston globe. he said he got the globe to create an entire new security staff which has since gone out on pension. that is how whitey sees himself as a job creator. are there statute of
8:50 am
limitations concerns? that was one of the questions the jury had. a pattern of racketeering allows the federal government to reach back decades. so there are no statutes of limitations. toiously, the only part which there are no statutes of limitations is murder. murder is a predicate act in 19 of the counts. built asteering law is such that it is aimed at organized crime so it allows prosecutors to go back years and pull out crimes to show extortions. court, youe state would have to do it within seven years. in a racketeering indictment, there is no statute of limitations. host: sarasota, florida, republican line. caller: good morning.
8:51 am
i was just wondering mr. cullen's thoughts regarding the prisoner's dilemma and how u.s. authorities work with organized this prisoner's dilemma can lead to failure. thank you. host: before you leave, what do you mean by prisoner's dilemma? caller: when two criminals go to they are trying to prove their innocence, and they both collude to work -- they actually end up making things worse in the court system. if you had the organized crime working with the u.s. authorities, this will lead to more failure. guest: obviously that is at the
8:52 am
heart of this case. whitey bulger claims that he had immunity from a federal jeremiahr named sullivan who was conveniently dead so he cannot be cross examined. but he claimed that he saved o .ullivan's live from mafia guys there's no evidence that the mafia mafia in this town was ever astute -- was ever stupid enough to kill a federal prosecutor. but that was his claim. the government challenged that, saying he should not be allowed to make that claim because there was no evidence. no paperwork, no phone call, no nothing. i wrote a column saying about the government should have let him make that argument. i i actually think it would make look evenger's lanes more preposterous. that only happens in jason in the reals, not world. certainly a federal prosecutor does not have the authority to grant a license to kill to any
8:53 am
person, let alone a gangster. that said, i have also written over the years that if i was whitey bulger, i would have believed this bid because the fbi did not just look the other way, they helped me and protected me. they went out of their way to keep me on the street. you can call it what you want, but in the gangster's world, that is immunity. i think the jury would have seen through it. you can blame the fbi all day every day, and nobody has been harder on them than me. at the evening of the day, the fbi did not shoot people in the back of the head and bury them in shallow graves. whitey bulger did. ben. republican line, caller: all the time that i have --n following this trial [inaudible] you are breaking up. try one more time. ok, he is breaking up. if we try again, we will try to
8:54 am
get you back on. chicago, illinois, republican line. caller: yes, when i hear you talk about the situation in austin, it reminds me of a book called "a corrupt city" in chicago which talks about the unholy alliance between the government agencies, like the fbi, the organized labor, teamsters in particular, and the whichatic party, corrupted the process in the .970's through 1990's have you seen this between the democrat, unions, and the government? guest: you know, i have not seen a partisan tinge to this. bill bolger was a lifelong actually democrat, but widely identified himself as a reagan democrat in his letters.
8:55 am
as for the government that protected him doma it was different elements. clearly in massachusetts and other places, there was a close relationship between organized labor and the democratic party. your kind of blurring things when you say organized labor means organized crime. the teamsters and boston -- in boston had their own problems. there were criminals who were members of the teamsters. for the ofworking the eye, and they told bulger about someone who tried to turn him in so he could murder him, and he did. we go far when we suggest that this has any kind of partisan tinger. whitey bulger was protected by both democrats and republicans.
8:56 am
the corrupt system within the fbi is actually nonpartisan. i would argue he goes all the way back to hoover. the way that hoover ran things was not above board. the fbi played god when they can to organized crime. it began long before whitey bulger. the fbi was doing that in the 1960's in the game wars in boston when they decided who would live and who would die. host: how did he get his nickname? guest: it was his hair. when he was a kid, he was like -- he did not like whitey. if you call that to his phase, he would give you a hard stare. his mother called him sonny. he had more than names than a mafia guy. from jail, he started
8:57 am
signing them whitey bulger. he actually kind of bragged that he had become the most famous former denizen of alcatraz, even bigger than capone. one thing we saw in the letters is that whitey bulger had many problems but self-esteem was not one of them. houston, texas, independent line. fbier: has anybody from the -- or is the fbi being held for aiding him in his criminal activities? as far as today's standards, are the same things going on as far as protecting a criminal that is still doing criminal activity? the first me take part. there has only been one agent. he grew up in the same neighborhood as whitey bulger and became his hammer. he was prosecuted for racketeering and was convicted in 2002.
8:58 am
then he was prosecuted beyond that in florida for helping whitey murder somebody. he is doing 40 years for murder in florida right now. he was the only agent ever held accountable here at one agent named paul rico was very corrupt and did these things in the 1960 costs. he was under indictment for a murder and oklahoma of a legitimate businessman who was murdered in 1980 one. he died while awaiting trial. he was in custody. prosecutor later went on to investigate the cia and torture cases, and he got up there and promised he would issue a report that would identify other fbi agents and supervisors who committed crimes in this conduct. the judge who is one of the few heroes in this tale exposed the level of corruption 10 years after my newspaper exposed
8:59 am
whitey as an informant in the first place. the judge forced the fbi to admit in 1997 that it was true. they lie for years, denying this. 661ruling was a mammoth page opus on this case. it is held up very well. he said there were at least a dozen fbi agents under what he saw evidence wise who should be facing prosecution, but nothing ever happened. that is because that report has never been issued by john durham or anyone in the justice department. the justice department from day one, the strategy was to minimize this. it was all about damage limitation. they can let the narrative be one corrupt agent, the hometown agent and wiseguy and it went awry. that is nonsense. there was an agent who in 1988
9:00 am
call me at the boston globe and said if i printed that whitey ever happened to that agent. i testified. never disciplined him. the justice department never disciplined. he retired with a full pension. his supervisor was implicated in getting people killed. he rolled. he became a government witness. he never spent a day in jail. he retired with the full pension and has become a professional witness. as i say, i believe there was testimony about half a dozen agents taking money, being paid. nothing ever happened to them because the justice department wants this to go away. the second part of the question -- what was the second part of the question?
9:01 am
take a let's squeeze in one more call. let's is in one more call. overr: did ye ever cross columbia road into the african american community or any of those types of crimes? -- did whitey/ guest: not that i know of. racist.w he is a mixer, as they said. he believed in the separation of races more or less. on today?o it does go on. last year i wrote a series of columns about a guy named mark rossetti, a suspect in six murders and the fbi used him as an informant. if not the great work of the
9:02 am
massachusetts police, he would still be out there. he was just put away for 12 years. i know the police officer who led the investigation. when the fbi found out -- he went to the fbi before they targeted the sky because they said we think he is this guy. the very first conversation the recorded with a got a wiretap on the sky, this criminal talking to his fbi handlers. does this bill go on? it still goes on unfortunately. host: because it is in boston, where they're concerned about getting a fair trial? guest: i think that is a legitimate issue, can he get a fair trial? i would think it would have to move out of new england. people in rhode island, connecticut, do hampshire, they all know the story. you learn about it by osmosis. it is a legitimate question.
9:03 am
i think it is a fair question. i would also say the jury system is what it is. when people say they can be impartial, obviously i could never be on that jury. co-author of "whitey brlger" thank you for your time. -- burler. engage inor you to open phones. here is how you can do so this morning -- as always, you can send us a tweet. or interact with us through e- mail. online payday at
9:04 am
lending operations. this is a story out of washington as saying -- this from "the wall street journal" -- this also taking a look at freddie mac.
9:05 am
you will remember the president spoke about this earlier this week. type in obama or ben neat -- fannie and freddie. again, the numbers --
9:06 am
is packed, but first, new jersey. republican line. good morning. there are many minds out there much smarter than i, but the financial mess we're in could possibly helped -- be helped by getting the offshore money that the large corporations are holding back into the country and get production business back into the country by giving them a large tax break, 18 months to start their businesses on the of air conditioning and refrigeration. every tax dollar we spend, whether it is from schools or hospitals or whatever has to be spent in this country with a production of things that are
9:07 am
made in this country. that was 75 percent of it coming from somewhere else. 100% of it coming from here. so you will not have -- you will have people making paper clips, school buses and people making blackboards and people making hospital beds. but in a sense, we are partially self contained without cutting off all consumers. .ost: new haven democrats line. caller: i wanted to call attention, since we're going on and on about war atrocities in syria and them attacking their own people to the worst war atrocities and human history. we are on the 68 anniversary of hiroshima.
9:08 am
i think that really qualifies as a war atrocity. those people have never recovered from that. geniee and the nuclear and threatened with it again in the cuban missile crisis. i really think it is a frightening thing. we still have nuclear waste stored in all the nuclear power plants across the country. the low level of waste at that place was overcome, and i think i live in new haven and imagine something coming up. this is how the nuclear waste will be in the ocean.
9:09 am
take a thank-you for the call. the money section from "usa today." theost: thank you for call. we are on target and ready to flip the switch. we know there is still work to do. the announcement comes as several groups are doing battle about insurance confusion. some seek to get as many people signed up on the new exchanges as possible. others are citing people's confusions about insurance as evidence with the 2012 healthcare law is about ideal and should be repealed. brandon from delaware.
9:10 am
independent line. calling really quick to talk about whitey bulger. if he is going to be prosecuted, i think government officials need to be prosecuted, too. no one of the government is ever prosecuted for anything. let's start prosecuting them for some of these things. i want to comment on the illegal immigrant situation. i do not know why it is even a question, it is against the law and they should not be here. why is it even a question? anyone else caught breaking the law, there is no question about it. why is there an issue with them? as far as them getting benefits, i am appalled at that. how can someone that is the legal that should not be here be able to receive anything? host: next call from new hampshire. caller: i think it is
9:11 am
interesting you brought that up. i want to give a shout out to the creek good government i am dealing with. my comment is more on the lines of what you were talking about the predatory lenders and things of that nature. going to be my comment, the micro end of the equation. ien the other lady, pat, believe, more on the macro end of things without asking you folks about what we will do about clamping down on making things here in america. we used to put that on a pedestal, made in america with pride. i am wondering when that whole equation -- it is interesting. you hear the american people calling up and say let's get the macro and the wing, too. that is pretty much what we
9:12 am
need. the government to sit down and listen. it is like a bunch of kids. i am sorry to be derogatory about it, but that is how it is. host: gary from new hampshire. "the wall street journal" -- there is some reaction, one from peter king of new york saying president obama was being misleading.
9:13 am
if you go back and look we were always very careful to differentiate between al qaeda score and senior leadership in afghanistan and pakistan. the international section of the new york times. the gloating among to halt this and other sympathizers began last week after the date -- the united states shut down posts across the middle east. -- jihadists.
9:14 am
host: michela open phones. open phones.n the isler: as far as terrorism concerned, we live and thrive in america on terrorism. --se terrorism, pitting , pitting onesm
9:15 am
country against another. almost like 1984, keep war going and our minds off of what is really happening. this is america. it used to be a great company -- used to be a great country. in america.ake we need to stop predatory lending. stop overseas bank accounts. iron onto stop putting the backs of the poor and middle class. we need to start paying people the right salary and then we would have to worry about immigrants, because in reality we are all immigrants. blackwood, new jersey. democrat line. think our biggest
9:16 am
issue with illegal immigrants is we make it easy for them to be here illegal. i have worked all my life, never needed assistance from the government. when i needed medical assistance for my son and myself, i had to sign away myself. there were illegal immigrants that did not have papers that to me and were able to get emergency checks on the premise they have children born here said they were able to get it. if we stop giving the benefit of americans who pay taxes, than they would go home. we would not have the problem of trying to keep them out. why would we keep them out when they're getting free help from this country? on the republican line. caller: thank you for taking my call. leno had theat jay
9:17 am
president on an discussing very important relations between russia, and also, discussing our business on national television. i just think that is wrong. belongs in president the white house. being on national tv and discussing foreign policy with other countries, i have never seen anybody do that. the: why is it different if information comes from the white house or through jay leno or whatever? reachingcause he is other people's homes, foreign countries are seeing this as -- i have never seen the president on ais authority
9:18 am
broadcasting network that goes throughout the world. not presidential. i just feel it is an abuse of being who he is supposed to be. from florida. democrat line. i wanted to talk about, everyone is talking about the country has weapons of mass destruction. the worst mass destruction against the united states is our legislators. that is all i have to say. host: a couple of other stories health-related. on the from "usa today" skin from alzheimer's. the federal government will decide in early fall whether to pay for brain scans.
9:19 am
steve up from ohio. you are the last call. independent line. caller: i would like to point out, in the 2012 election, 93 million people were eligible to vote who did not. these people better wake up to vote for the kind of america they want. how do you get more people interested in voting? think people have to
9:20 am
-- in america you have to hit them between the eyes. as the affordable care ad goes into effect, more and more jobs are lost, independence has eroded, the president right on every issue because he takes all five. it is really not represented by the republicans or democrats. host: how do you define cancer? the national cancer institute, a group of experts about that. you may find that the group's recommendations are surprising. we will ask dr. barnett kramer about those recommendations.
9:21 am
first, an update from c-span radio. the labor department says the four-week average which is an week to week fluctuation drop by more than 6000 to reach the lowest level since november of 2007, and the month before the great recession began. more on mortgages and the 2008 financial crisis. j.p. morgan chase says it is being investigated by criminal and civil divisions of the justice department. the news comes at just the day after bank of america was hit with civil suits from the doj and sec. they received a notice in may of this year stating it had preliminary concluded the bank violated certain federal securities law connected with the residential mortgage-backed securities offering during
9:22 am
2005-2007. j.p. morgan says in the filing it raised its estimate of possible legal estimates to nearly $7 billion at the end of june. , johninterview published lewis of georgia was asked if he thought edward snowden had engaged in an act of civil disobedience. his reply, " in keeping with the philosophy and discipline of non-violence, in keeping with the teaching of people like gandhi and others, if you believe something that is not right, something is unjust and willing to defy customs, traditions, and that law, you have a conscious and have a right to defy those laws and be willing to pay the price. he added that is what we did. i got arrested 40 times in the 1960's. sometimes you have to act by the dictates of your conscious. you have to do it."
9:23 am
edward snowden faces charges of espionage in the united states but was granted temporary asylum in russia last week. was50 years ago our nation engaged in a civil war, yet in 1863 our nation was reminded of the revolutionary past when henry longfellow produce pales of a wayside end. one of those tales began, listen my children, and you shall hear of the big night ride of paul revere. in 1863, the root beer name was elevated. however, at the same time, the revered name is being chastised, because one of his grandson's, brigadierevere general revers of the army of the potomac is up for a court martial for his actions of the historic battle of
9:24 am
chancellorsville virginia in early may of 1863. how did this grandson of one of our revolutionary war heroes get in such a mess? >> the life of union general, joseph for beer saturday night just past 11:00 eastern. this is part of american history tv every weekend on c-span3. > "washington journal" continues. joshuae're joined by a barnett kramer. joshua barnett kramer. what was the study? what did you find out? take a first of all, the media attention was drawn to this issue by a meeting that was held last year. the reason for the meeting was to develop research direction in an area that represents a
9:25 am
mounting problem in the field of public health and cancer in particular. that is the increasing use of more sensitive cancer screening tests. this has led to the discovery of cancers or what is traditionally called cancers that are very slow-growing and maybe slow -- may be sold slow-growing that they are not life-threatening. the meeting was convened in order to get experts to talk to the national cancer institute experts about ways to sort this out, ways to distinguish the slowest-growing cancers and the fastest-growing cancers. at the meeting one of the themes was that term cancer does not fit all sizes. it is an outdated term and does not convey the mounting evidence we have about actual natural behavior of those cancers, some of which did not act like cancer at all. host: what are the varying
9:26 am
degrees you are talking about? guest: we are using terminology that goes back 100 years in depends on a very static picture, what the past policies when he or she looks under the microscope? that really misses the dynamic nature of cancer, picking up that grow -- lesions quickly verses very slowly and what are the techniques to better convey to doctors and patients what the term actually means we're talking about this. host: you changed the definition. what does that mean for the people diagnosed and what they do after they received the diagnosis? guest: that is the key question. in most cases we have not changed the definition. there is precedent for changing the names when we know they grow very slowly. a couple of examples. early in my career, we used to
9:27 am
call early lesions of the cervix that appeared to be risk factors carcinoma. it is a very frightening term. now we do not even refer to it as carcinoma. it is cervical neoplasia. cancer is absent from the term and allows women and their doctors to get past the confusing terminology and get down to what we actually mean. the same has been true for legions of the urinary tract. now we call them regions of low malignant potential. ovarian cancer, very slow growing ovarium cancels -- cancers that we refer to as low malignant potential. we are gravitating toward the terminology that more accurately reflects what we know about what could happen to the tumor and whether or not it is likely to
9:28 am
progress. is itif i am the patient, fair for me to hear it that way? no one knows if it will grow fast or slow. never 100, we're percent certain about what will happen to any given lesion. the reason we put carcinoma in to the original terminology is at least slowed -- some of them could become life-threatening to. we are slowly coming to understand that all prostate cancers are the same. many, if not most of the tumors that are detected by screening are slow-growing.
9:29 am
the former conveys a very slow- growing cancer that may not benefit from treatment. only part of the meeting was devoted to terminology. a lot of this was devoted to research direction, are there new molecular techniques where we can look at the biopsies and determine in -- and determined with more precision what would happen if it were not treated? then we can get more advice and more valid advice to patients so they can sort through the issues and decide for themselves whether they want to watch and wait or undergo access
9:30 am
surveillance vs straight to their peak. many of the therapies in the world of cancer are very toxic. diagnosishere over and over treatment in this field? guest: there is, and that is the exact reason the meeting was convened. there are two elements that lead to over diagnosis. one is a large reservoir of slow-growing lesions look like cancer but did not act like cancer. the more we learn about biology, the more we know there is usually, if not always a spectrum of such tumors, a body of an iceberg of disease. the only other criteria you need is the ability to dip into the reservoir and diagnose the tumors, and of course, with the increasing attention to better and better technology that can pick up the smallest lesions, we are dipping into the body of the iceberg more and more. host: taking a look at the
9:31 am
topics of cancer, a diagnosis, treatment with dr. barnett kramer. ask him questions at -- we have set aside a line at this morning for current or former cancer patients. the national cancer institute, what is it? institute largest within the national institutes of health, an agency within the federal government funded by the federal government. it is composed of two major elements, intermural scientists, those performing research on the main campus of the national institutes of health in bethesda, md., and extramural component, and this is the component that spends the most
9:32 am
money, fund a large proportion of biomedical research all around the country. host: what has been the reaction, the steady and information on topics we have been engaging in? guest: i think the accumulating evidence of over diagnosis and increasing ability to detect the slowest-growing tumors has been on the front burner for a long time at the national cancer institute and did get to the point where recalled for the meeting of outside experts, which read referred to as a think-tank. we have been trying to devise research strategies, and that is in part why we called in experts. we are funding studies that help delineate the slowest-growing regions from the fastest growing dangerous cancers. from our first call is julie. calling on the democrat line. go ahead. caller: my late husband
9:33 am
underwent a whipple procedure when all the tests indicated to the doctors that that was a surgery that would have been incredibly wrong to do. he suffered horribly. he died with nine drains and his body. it was over treatment, and they should not have done it. it was too much. guest: i am very sorry to hear what happened to your husband and i cannot speak to specifics but does raise the issue, the impetus of the meeting, the consequence of picking up slower and slower legions. a growing recognition that unfortunately because of the sensitive screening tests we have, we are over treating, over diagnosed in -- over diagnosing. pancreatic cancer is a very
9:34 am
fast-growing cancer. your husband'sto unfortunate situation and outcome, but it is on average much faster growing than some of the tumors i have been talking about, and therefore we suspect, although we do not know for a fact, that in the case of pancreatic cancer, they are the faster growing types. host: a put a question for you -- --twitter is a risk.risk in our country we tend to be very proactive when we see anything that looks like cancer.
9:35 am
the reason for the change in terminology is to give the patient and doctor a better sense of what is more likely to occur. these are all complicated issues. host: allen on the line from syracuse, new york. caller: i was diagnosed with stage 3 bladder cancer. the and colleges was convinced i was unsay of rubble and argue with the surgeon to not treat me. they call me cancer free.
9:36 am
the question i have is i was used for anti- addiction. there has been a lot of research on micro doses of this of having extremely positive cancer- fighting elements. pardon me, i am nervous. i have been taking this drug. i told my doctor is all about it, every doctor i had knew i was taking this. i went through the surgery. they cannot explain how they managed to keep me alive. my question is, does the national cancer institute do any thator look at evidence would increase the likelihood of the success rate of chemo? guest: absolutely. very gratifying to hear you have already benefited from some of
9:37 am
the advances in treatment and surgery in medical treatment, but you bring up a larger issue, and that is, where do we go from here? how do we improve? two ways to improve. one is to improve on the effectiveness of the treatments we use, and the other one is to decrease the toxicity. the very largest of the division at the national cancer institute is not mine, a division of cancer treatment and diagnosis. not only does it do research on cancer on these various lines, but most of the money is devoted to treatment research is given to outside researchers, of the clique -- exactly along the lines of the way that is supposed to go. caller: has there been any new assessment and breast cancer, i
9:38 am
am concerned because i had surgery seven years ago. dcis played a prominent part of the discussion of the think tank meeting last year that i mentioned, because this was a very rare lesion. as mammography has gotten better and better and more sensitive, we're picking up a larger proportion of women that have this. we are also learning that many of these that are detected are very slow-growing and might not benefit from the same radical treatments that are traditionally being used. so at least part of the discussion was devoted to change in terminology.
9:39 am
example, the suggestion came .p that we should refer to a that is not enough to change a name. it is much more important to better understand the underlying technology and much of the meeting was devoted to strategies that can help us at the molecular level decide which women should be treated and which women should be treated right away? host: was that the ultimate result? there is, someone view it as a disturbing trend, an increase in mastectomy's because of these, some of which are slow-growing. because of the terminology and the fear that women have come a of there is an,
9:40 am
increasing tendency to not only , but to go all the way through mastectomy on that side. i think we're learning in many cases that can represent over treatment. derrick up next from minnesota. good morning. quick question for you. how many people died of cancer last year? guest: in the neighborhood of 500,000 is a close figure. many of them of around the world. some of theiver of cancer deaths is smoking. it is important to keep in mind if we could get people to stop smoking, it would decrease the
9:41 am
risk of dying of cancer in the neighborhood of 30%. current cancer patient. john from florida. i was: dr. kramer, watching a tv program several years ago about a scientist that had come up with a treatment he would inject an no particles into the tumor and use of microwaves. it sounded like it was really a good treatment. i have never heard anything about that. thank you. no particles are very active form of research at the national cancer institute. nano.
9:42 am
research is a very long pathway. it often takes years, and certainly one of those cases. but this in therapy and diagnosis is a very active research at the national cancer institute and academic centers around the country. host: is their concern about malpractice? ultimately something happens down the road? the could have said you could have been more aggressive as far as treatment is concerned. guest: malpractice is often in the back of many doctors' minds anyway. the purpose was not to address the issue of whether it would increase or decrease the risk of malpractice. the purpose was to clarify for doctors and patients what we are talking about when we refer to a lesion, and help them get past the technology -- terminology that can corrupt practices. if you attach a very frightening
9:43 am
it can sometimes block out some of the more important discussions about what is the best thing to do? host: ralph from dover, ohio. republican line. and caller: good morning. i have a question about esophagus. i have had gerd for several years. i have been misdiagnosed with barrett's esophagus. also, i get a psa test regularly. it is like a 0.4. it has never gone above one. my last question is, what is your opinion of the cancer centers of america? guest: i will only answer the first two, because i do not know
9:44 am
much at all about the cancer centers of america soared cannot speak with any authority on that. i will get to your issue about specificch is prostate- antigen, a blood test used for almost two decades for the early detection of prostate cancer. the problem is, it is not specific for prostate cancer. specific for almost any legion or abnormality in the prostate region, including a nine growth. it detects a lot of prostate cancers, many of them very slow- growing. we do not have a good way, unfortunately other than the crude techniques of looking at the cells under a microscope. we do know there is over diagnosis and a large measure of over treatment. that's, in part, is why the united states preventive
9:45 am
services task force, an authoritative parnell -- panel that makes recommendations regarding prostate cancer screening attached a grade d to the evidence, recommending against the routine use of psa screening. having said that, it is good low for you have that very levels of psa identify men at low risk of having dangerous prostate cancers. that is very good. the other issue brought up is the barrett's esophagus. that was one of the abnormalities in the lower esophagus near the summit that engendered a lot of the discussion, because the more we learn about it, the more we know that most of the lesions are very low risk and the type buses can lead to over treatment. again, an entire network devoted to delineating the behavior of
9:46 am
barrett's esophagus. host: of you were asked if it is why -- why is to have annual stands? guest: i want to point out the difference between diagnostic tests and follow-up tests for cancer. and screening tests. screening tests are tests that are used in people who have no underlying suspicious -- suspicion for cancer. therefore, we want to be judicious about any risks for radiation. radiation at almost any those can be presumed to at least damaged some of dna and at least cause some damage. that is what we want to use screening tests judiciously. now when you get to a follow-up of patients that already have cancer, there is a different matter, because the risk for
9:47 am
recurrence can be quite high. you have identified a very high- risk population. you do not want to do tests that are not needed. at least you know it can pick up cancers that are more dangerous. radiation,erapeutic far higher doses of radiation is a treatment, and the benefits of the treatments are very high. you have to except some of the harm's associated with diagnoses. darden predicts dr. barnett kramer. dennis on the line for those that are current or past cancer patient. -- talking to dr. barnett kramer. caller: i was diagnosed this -- diagnosed with a bleeding ulcer. a surgery took place two weeks later. they removed about a third of my
9:48 am
stomach. the pathology showed that cancer was present. after the surgery, a pet scan revealed no cancer but the oncologist they referred me to recommended i take a six-month course of chemotherapy every 28 completedhe recently last week the sixth treatment. what would be the procedure normally to do follow-up test? i am not very sure. i will tell you that i feel great. guest: that is gratifying. nice to hear that you have benefited from the research dollar spent over the years by the national cancer institute
9:49 am
and others to discover the best management apartment -- approach to stomach cancers. i am glad to hear your graduated from chemotherapy and entering the process of chemotherapy. the act ofature of follow up depends on the stage and the doctor's opinion and his discussion with you. up would below- necessary. research determined adding chemotherapy to a least some stages still offers additional benefit. that sounds like that is the case with you. kind of dollars are we talking? under our budget is just $5 billion. we of course have the budgetary restraints because of sequestration. there is a lot of them.
9:50 am
nonetheless, $5 billion is a lot of money. we try to use that as judiciously as we can to pursue research such as this. host: we have been talking about over diagnosis in cancer definition, some of the things found. over diagnosis is common. the idea we talked about, the changing cancer terminology to create registries for low, malignant central regions to expand the concept of how to approach cancer progression. texas,n, of mesquite, democrat line. caller: i am curious of the correlation between the civilian population and military population as far as overall cancer amounts. also, i would like to know, i am suffering from to cancers, prostate cancer and bone cancer. could one have been caused from
9:51 am
the other? without knowing the specifics of your case, i do not know whether they are related. whether it was due to treatment and if they were predisposed. in general we view them as separate diseases. the disease in itself does not seem to predispose people to the second cancer that you mentioned. cancer rates, it is very difficult sometimes to determine and compare rates across different populations. military population tends to be younger than the average population. issue ofcer is a aging, and also there is a healthy person. that is people that are generally very healthy are at
9:52 am
very high -- at a lower risk. people who joined the military tend to be healthy. it is very difficult to directly compare the rates in the civilian population to the military population. host: a question from a viewer about changing or cancer affects insurance and pre-existing conditions? guest: that was not a topic of discussion and survey by the outside my expertise. the national cancer institute is really a research agency. it tries to provide the best advice for patients and doctors. we did not get involved with third-party payers. oklahoma.l said, elizabeth. -- tulsa. caller: do speak to the role of testing in non-responsive cancer. -- could you speak to the role of testing in non-responsive cancer.
9:53 am
guest: a very active area of research because we think there's a lot of information to be gained by looking at the molecular level of cancer. one of the ways is looking for jeanette mutations. as cancers grow and become more aggressive, we think they accumulate more and more genetic mutations and that may provide precisefor increasingly medical interventions. so it is an active area of research. we are in another division looking at lines of research. looking at the anomalies, patients who had unexpectedly very good responses to chemotherapy, and trying to see if they had genetic mutations that might explain why they did so well. on the other hand, looking at people who had many mutations, and there we can delve into the mutations that might provide targets for a provision in
9:54 am
medical therapy. host: as creeping change? has screening for cancer change? --st: it used to be there people would only go to doctors for problems or if they notice lumps. around the 1920's there was an enthusiasm for screening, and then with the formation of the american cancer society, it came into the public eye that screening might be a good thing. it was left in part to over simplification. there was an assumption. in some ways we were way too successful at convincing the public that every screening test must be good. that is picking up a cancer earlier than you would have known about it always translate to a better fit. unfortunately early detection is not equivalent to earlier detection.
9:55 am
as we put more and more focused on discovering smaller and we have ledions, to over diagnosis in some cases and over treatment. host: matthew and next from maryland. democrat line. caller: what advances have been made to treat cancer? thank you. guest: very active research. as we learn more and more about the biology of the cancer, the more complex we recognize it is. there was a day when we thought most of the emphasis should be on the mutation of the jeans because that contained all the information that would lead to cancer or drive it. now we know that was a gross oversimplification and at the ofetics is the field genetics in which we look for modifiers of genetic function.
9:56 am
these are molecules that will regulate the expression of genes, and turn them on and off. that is an extremely active area of research in this central to what they are likely to do. there are genes that are turned on and will drive to cancer. if you turn off suppressor genes, as some do, then it can drive the tissue toward cancer. the begoal is to modify genetics in both ways. host: bill is up next for our guest, dr. bernard kramer. -- dr. barnett kramer.
9:57 am
caller: hello. thank you for taking my call. believendering, do you and nutrition is a factor in treatment of cancers, and what is the best way to prevent cancer from happening? are a lot of lead in how to decrease risk. some of them in the field of nutrition. we did not have definitive answers in most cases. todo know people who adhere so-called healthy diets, non- western diet, diets that are more plant based seem to have decreased risk for whole variety of diseases, including cancer. sometimes it is very difficult to determine cause and effect because of the complexity of the study. and i am pleased to say as an
9:58 am
active area of research in my own division and we have a research group that is devoted exactly to the area of science. >> talk about chemotherapy. guest: this came out of world war ii when it was noticed that some of the chemical toxins were leading to a sudden disappearance of wimp glands and blood cells. aat led to the insight that single agents they could cause provisions in people with leukemia. they did, but it was very short- lived. people the 1960's started saying we could combine agents and avoid the toxicities that is used. that really was the big breakthrough, combining chemotherapy and lead to the
9:59 am
permanent tears that have been becoming more frequent. in more recent years we're trying to go after the molecular legsions and target them with what is called precision madison. there are isolated cases where that has been highly effective. leukemianagement of and certain other tumors that are unusual, but nevertheless, these provide as biology. from here we are working on using the same types of strategies for the much more common tumors. host: last call, johnny from texas. we have about a minute left. you could go ahead and ask your question or make a comment, please. inler: i was diagnosed february with asteroid tumors. they said it was cancer. and i am having trouble with my
10:00 am
insurance. .hey say it is not cancer it is an aggressive tumor that comes back 40% of the time after surgery. it only three on 1 million people get it. now they tell me it is not malik and, but if it is not benign, it is it malignant? speak to yourot case. only your doctor can look at your pathology report. agency, we based our research direction on where the biology leads us and where the scientific insights are, rather than tissue. host: what are the next steps that you have this information for your institute? guest: trying to develop

Washington Journal
CSPAN August 8, 2013 7:00am-10:01am EDT

News/Business. Live morning call-in program with government officials, political leaders, and journalists.

TOPIC FREQUENCY Fbi 31, Whitey Bulger 23, Us 19, Washington 18, Russia 15, Boston 15, United States 15, Vladimir Putin 12, America 12, U.s. 11, Florida 9, Snowden 9, Afghanistan 8, Obama 6, Texas 6, Edward Snowden 5, Dr. Barnett Kramer 5, Massachusetts 5, Bulger 3, Kevin Cullen 3
Network CSPAN
Duration 03:01:00
Scanned in San Francisco, CA, USA
Source Comcast Cable
Tuner Channel 17
Video Codec mpeg2video
Audio Cocec ac3
Pixel width 704
Pixel height 480
Sponsor Internet Archive
Audio/Visual sound, color

disc Borrow a DVD of this show
info Stream Only
Uploaded by
TV Archive
on 8/8/2013